Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[Loudmouth]

1. In a micro biological system for example , if non intelligent chemical evolution cannot reasonably and objectively show it was responsible...then what other explanation is there than Intelligence being responsible for it ? Is there a third option that im not aware of then ?

Yes. The third option is "I don't know".

2. Its not 'God of the Gaps' when something can be objectively shown to absolutely require measurable intelligence for an end product, system, or operation to exist and function properly ; its willful ignorance when people refuse to admit to an obviously intelligently designed system based on the implications thereof -- thats what 'scientific-chauvinism' means : A Designers foot must not be allowed thru the door , so, automatically rule out intelligent causes from the get-go. Have you read the amazing admission from an esteemed Evolutionist regarding this ? :

Just making you aware of the fallacies I have seen in other debates so that we could start out with solid arguments.

2.a. Can 'Evolution of the Gaps' explain the existence of the Presidential Faces on Mt. Rushmore since we didnt actually see them being produced (assuming you and I didnt) ? Would your statement of 'Just because you can't see how something could evolve does not mean it is designed' , still stand in this instance ?

No one is claiming that Mt. Rushmore evolved.

3. Why is it 'incredulous' to conclude something was intelligently designed by ruling out blind evolution in accordance to objective scientific standards for what constitutes a design ?

That wouldn't be incredulous. That would be a false dichotomy as discussed above. It is a logical fallacy.

Interested in debating then ? If so, review the Guideline Sticky in the Formal Debate Room , then lets set up some ground rules per the Sticky.

That would be fine with me. Just be aware of how logical fallacies work because I will be calling them out if they are used.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Do you think a depression in the ground has to be fine tuned to exactly fit the shape of the water in a puddle?

You didnt answer number 1 or 2 that I posited prior .

Further, the exact desired shape of the water IS dependent on numerous deliberate fine-tuning parameters to achieve it ... just like the desired shape and function of a House is. Were talking about a DESIRED functional outcome arent we , and not just a random hole in the ground being filled with rainwater.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didnt answer number 1 or 2 that I posited prior .

I think that would be best answered in the debate, don't you?

Further, the exact desired shape of the water IS dependent on numerous deliberate fine-tuning parameters to achieve it ... just like the desired shape and function of a House is. Were talking about a DESIRED functional outcome arent we , and not just a random hole in the ground being filled with rainwater.

Um, no. The water adapts to the shape of the depression in the ground, not the other way around.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Yes. The third option is "I don't know".



Just making you aware of the fallacies I have seen in other debates so that we could start out with solid arguments.



No one is claiming that Mt. Rushmore evolved.



That wouldn't be incredulous. That would be a false dichotomy as discussed above. It is a logical fallacy.



That would be fine with me. Just be aware of how logical fallacies work because I will be calling them out if they are used.

1. You can and DO know if there was intelligence associated with something you are diligently considering ; you can know it by objective standards constitutin design , and, you can conclude it by implementing some intuition as well. But oftentimes when faced with the obvious, some will default to the 'I dont know' and 'You dont know either' position.

2. Im aware of the fallacy arguements , and i dont plan on going there .

3. Why didnt Mt. Rushmore evolve , or, why dont you know how it formed ... since niether of us were there when it occured ? Mt. Rushmore grossly pales in comparison to the extreme complexity and order as found in micro-biology and cosmology for instance ; yet no one would logically conclude Mt. Rushmore were fashioned by nature .


4. It is never a false dychotomy to compare Something to firm scientific objective Standards for scrutiny, and then reach a logical conclusion ; people use the False Dychotomy mantra as an excuse whenever their nose gets out of joint because it doesnt fit in with their own personal religious agenda (in this case : blind random evolution) .

5. Ok. Ill be countering them should you apply them inappropriately or as an excuse because youre backed into a corner and cant offer a cogent scientific explanation.

Ill wait to hear back from you via PM.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7732146/ . This is the link to the Debate Proposal. Im trying to find an Atheist to debate with, but, if the Atheist doesnt believe my scientific examples of Intelligent Design implying a personal Designer , are credible, then it would be encumbant upon the Atheist to explain , cogently, why it doesnt require an intelligent source (and resorting to 'Evolution did it' im afraid would not be an acceptable refutation) .

Thanks.

Why would you want to debate an atheist when topic of discussion is biology?

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Why would you want to debate an atheist when topic of discussion is biology?

Because Atheists dont believe that there are examples of Intelligent Design , implying a personal Designer, found in any of our modern sciences -- they instead automatically discount that option in favor of everything NEEDING to come from natural non intelligent Causes . For, if they did otherwise, they would cease being an Atheist by definition. Call it a Catch-22 .

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Because Atheists dont believe that there are examples of Intelligent Design , implying a personal Designer, found in any of our modern sciences -- they instead automatically discount that option in favor of everything NEEDING to come from natural non intelligent Causes . For, if they did otherwise, they would cease being an Atheist by definition. Call it a Catch-22 .

Of course, cdesign proponentsists have yet to 1. define design and how you recognize it, and 2. no evidence of a designer.

But you might be better off challenging an evolutionary biologist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because Atheists dont believe that there are examples of Intelligent Design , implying a personal Designer, found in any of our modern sciences -- they instead automatically discount that option in favor of everything NEEDING to come from natural non intelligent Causes . For, if they did otherwise, they would cease being an Atheist by definition. Call it a Catch-22 .

Atheists need evidence in order to accept a claim. If you can't evidence your claims, then why should atheists accept them? It's not about needing a natural explanation. Rather, it's about needing evidence. In the atheist world, "I don't know" is a valid answer. In fact, it is a very exciting answer.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Of course, cdesign proponentsists have yet to 1. define design and how you recognize it, and 2. no evidence of a designer.

But you might be better off challenging an evolutionary biologist.

I have in my possession a list of Standards that constitute Design of something/anything , so, yes...that must be agreeable first.

Secondly, the examples of I.D. that i give is possible to give, even without knowing the Designer .

Micro Biology is just one of the 5 examples i will give .

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I have in my possession a list of Standards that constitute Design of something/anything , so, yes...that must be agreeable first.

Secondly, the examples of I.D. that i give is possible to give, even without knowing the Designer .

Micro Biology is just one of the 5 examples i will give .

I haven't read all the posts, so if you've already defined "design" and how to distinguish it from a naturally occurring observable process, could you link it please?

 

[Loudmouth]

Micro Biology is just one of the 5 examples i will give .

Hopefully it is more original than the old ID canard, "Evolution can't produce irreducibly complex systems, therefore ID."

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Atheists need evidence in order to accept a claim. If you can't evidence your claims, then why should atheists accept them? It's not about needing a natural explanation. Rather, it's about needing evidence. In the atheist world, "I don't know" is a valid answer. In fact, it is a very exciting answer.

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer , but the MO of the Atheist/Secular Humanist is to never admit to it so they can maintain thier personal philosophical commitment to 'atheism' which offers them personal benefits -- precisely as The Bible says. In short, they become willfully ignorant of the evidence because of the personal implications that a Creator existing, brings to the table . The Atheist SHOULD accept whereever the truth is leading , but alas, preservation of autonomy and freedom trump such secondary things .

As for the evidence, both Sides have the scientific evidence ... its just that many need to disregard it based on personal ulterior motives ; something that is not only common with the masses...but is also common with Scientists themselves for there is a great deal of prejudice when it comes to the analyzing of scientific discoveries with them being filtered thru the eyes and mind of biased Professionals whom the general Public relies on. Thats how psuedo-science was born and is still alive and well today.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Hopefully it is more original than the old ID canard, "Evolution can't produce irreducibly complex systems, therefore ID."

Youll have a chance to show how blind evolution can rule out ID , if you decide to move forward with the Formal Debate i proposed . And resorting to the 'I dont know Gap' wont be acceptable since you DO know that ID is 'just a fallacy' . The sword cuts both ways..and its a very sharp sword .

 

[Loudmouth]

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer , but the MO of the Atheist/Secular Humanist is to never admit to it so they can maintain thier personal philosophical commitment to 'atheism' which offers them personal benefits -- precisely as The Bible says.

So you have already set up the debate as "Heads I win, tails you lose". That's not a very honest way of going about it. When you proclaim ahead of time that your evidence is irrefutable, and anyone who denies it is wrong, then what is the point of a debate? All you are doing is putting your dogmatic beliefs on display. That's really not very interesting.

 

[Loudmouth]

Youll have a chance to show how blind evolution can rule out ID , if you decide to move forward with the Formal Debate i proposed .

Why would I have to do any such thing? "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. You are the one making a positive claim, so it is up to you to supply the evidence for your claim. If you are unable to do so we are back at "I don't know". You need to present positive evidence that something was designed. "Not evolution" is not evidence for ID. It is just evidence against evolution (and poor evidence at that since it relies on incredulity and ignorance).

And resorting to the 'I dont know Gap' wont be acceptable since you DO know that ID is 'just a fallacy' . The sword cuts both ways..and its a very sharp sword .

I have yet to see any evidence supporting ID, so why would I accept it as true? If you can't make your case then why accept ID?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer , but the MO of the Atheist/Secular Humanist is to never admit to it so they can maintain thier personal philosophical commitment to 'atheism' which offers them personal benefits -- precisely as The Bible says. In short, they become willfully ignorant of the evidence because of the personal implications that a Creator existing, brings to the table . The Atheist SHOULD accept whereever the truth is leading , but alas, preservation of autonomy and freedom trump such secondary things .

Similarly, my MO is to deny that the existence of rainbows is scientific evidence of leprechauns. There is scientific evidence of rainbows, so clearly I am willfully ignorant of the existence of leprechauns.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer , but the MO of the Atheist/Secular Humanist is to never admit to it so they can maintain thier personal philosophical commitment to 'atheism' which offers them personal benefits -- precisely as The Bible says. In short, they become willfully ignorant of the evidence because of the personal implications that a Creator existing, brings to the table . The Atheist SHOULD accept whereever the truth is leading , but alas, preservation of autonomy and freedom trump such secondary things .

As for the evidence, both Sides have the scientific evidence ... its just that many need to disregard it based on personal ulterior motives ; something that is not only common with the masses...but is also common with Scientists themselves for there is a great deal of prejudice when it comes to the analyzing of scientific discoveries with them being filtered thru the eyes and mind of biased Professionals whom the general Public relies on. Thats how psuedo-science was born and is still alive and well today.

I admit that you believe "that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer." What we would like to see is actual, objective, independent evidence of design, not to mention a "Designer."

As for accepting wherever the evidence leads, this is the evolutionary biologist/atheist's position. We're free to accept the most parsimonious explanation, an explanation that includes ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that we think best supports a belief.

IDer's believe what they do for religious reasons alone. What I mean by that, is there any amount of evidence that would cause you to change your mind? This is the inherent problem with religious dogma/ID, it starts with the answer, then searches for the questions. Where as the scientific method asks a question, then searches for the answers.

As for the bible as a scientific source, it has offered nothing in the way of enlightenment or discovery. Anything we've ever learned about the natural world, has been through the SM.

PEARL - physical evidence and reasoned logic.

As an atheist I like to think that I have arrived at my beliefs through reason, as best I can.

May I ask you a few questions?

Do you believe in a god/s?

Why do you believe in a god/s?

Why do you think I should believe in a god/s?

 

[Freodin]

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer , but the MO of the Atheist/Secular Humanist is to never admit to it so they can maintain thier personal philosophical commitment to 'atheism' which offers them personal benefits -- precisely as The Bible says. In short, they become willfully ignorant of the evidence because of the personal implications that a Creator existing, brings to the table . The Atheist SHOULD accept whereever the truth is leading , but alas, preservation of autonomy and freedom trump such secondary things .

You own personal commitment to your theistic philosophy might make it difficult for you to see the problem with this assertion: by proposing a personal, independent and intentional designer as a source of existence, you support the atheistic/secular humanist philosophy. You assert with this proposal that personality, independence - autonomy and freedom - are the basis of existence.

But these are the basis of what makes us humans. Regardless of whether these attributes are found anywhere else in existence, they make us humans. By your own position, this is intended.

So why do you go against the intention of your proposed creator?

 

[quatona]

If something is inconsistent with intelligent design, then it automatically defaults to non-intelligence as the cause / process . But fortunately, there are sound standards as a basis for determining if something demonstrates Design in conjuction with knowing if it does, intuitively , in nearly every circumstance .

If positing that everything is designed you are, however, denying the validity of those very criteria.

 

[quatona]

I maintain that there is plenty of scientific evidence out there for a personal theistic Designer

It would be best, then, to bring it to the table and allow everyone to scrutinize it - as the first step towards making your case.